<p><em><strong>Information</strong></em></p> <ul> <li>Don’t let people know how well they’re performing.</li> <li>Give people misleading information about how well they’re performing.</li> <li>Hide from people what’s expected of them.</li> <li>Give people little or no guidance about how to perform well.</li></ul>

<li>Immediate feedback prevents subsequent confusion and limits the likelihood for continued inappropriate retrieval practice.</li> <li>Delayed feedback creates a beneficial spacing effect.</li> <li>When in doubt about the timing of feedback, you can (a) give immediate feedback and then a subsequent delayed retrieval opportunity, (b) delay feedback slightly, and/or (c) just be sure to give some kind of feedback.</li> <li>Feedback should usually be provided before learners get another chance to retrieve incorrectly again.</li>

Now how do you make this open source and still pay the bills. One way would be to make the training content truly open like MIT. To recover costs, the manufacture or the training provider could charge for certification exam, access to mentors, discussion groups, and access the training equipment. So if certification credentials are import to the customer, then this model works.

or example, I have already explained how the customer can build dynamic content around their features, but a customer could also using Wiki-like features, go in and upload their system schematics, photos, maps, or IP addresses and then have the content repository publish a unique document for the requestor. The automotive industry is already moving in this direction creating unique user manuals for each customer based on the features selected at the time of purchase.

Thinking about the tools I'm building and the programs I'm developing - that seems more akin to the way I want my job to evolve. As a "knowledge gardener."

So I've decided that my next 5 years will be spent as a "knowledge gardener." Helping people get the information they need. Encouraging people within my organization to talk to each other and share what they know. Facilitating learning when they need and want it (preferrably in much smaller chunks than they are getting now).

Utilize decision-making scenarios. Consider using them not just in a minor role—for example at the end of a section—but integrated into the main narrative of your learning design.

Determine the most important points you want to get across AND the most important situations in which these points are critical. Then, provide extra repetitions spaced over time on these key points and situations.

<p>You wouldn't hire an interior designer only to inform.them that you've already chosen all the colour schemes and furnishings; you wouldn't engage an accountant and then explain to them the way you wanted them to process your figures; you wouldn't employ a fitness trainer and then tell them what to include in your workout; you wouldn't buy a dog and then insist on doing all the barking.</p> <p>So why, then, do we continue to encounter situations in which line managers tell the guys from l&amp;d exactly what they want in terms of learning interventions, with the expectation that the they'll simply take those instructions and run. </p>

Thus Kirschner, Sweller and Clark's paper is an important reminder for us to not carry Problem Based Learning (PBL) to its extreme. That is, while it has its strengths, learners often need a more direct approach in order to build a solid foundations before being presented with PBL.

With the title blaring, “<em>Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work”</em> rather than, <em>“Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work for Novice Learners,” </em>the authors almost seem to ignore that PBL is a necessity in order to promote deeper levels of understanding.

The paper relies heavily on Cognitive Load Theory, yet we have to realize that it is still a theory rather than a law.

Thus, both the authors and the constructivism movement are guilty of jumping on theories before they are fully understood.

That is, when you analyze a group, the findings often suggest that learning styles are relative unimportant, however, when you look at an individual, then the learning style often distinguishes itself as a key component of being able to learn or not.

Thus the main take-away that I get from the paper if that if you are an instructor, manager, etc. who has to help the individual learners, then learning styles make sense. On the other hand, if you are an instructional designer or someone who directs her or his efforts at the group, then learning styles are probably not that important.